Interesting. I had not heard that the artist still owns the Bull. I would assume that he did not waive his moral rights in the loan agreement so it seems to me that he has a plausible basis to make a claim.

As State Street has essentially admitted as much, it also seems like there may be a solid argument that SHE does distort, mutilate, or modify the Bull in a way that prejudices the author's honor or reputation. under the Visual Artists Rights Act. I have not read the claim but I guess it is against the NYC department that granted them the permit to place it there which might force them to cancel that permit, if it is not expired by that time.

But even if he wins, State Street has still pulled off a huge marketing coup.

He dropped it under a Christmas tree, not on Christmas. It landed December 15. It was then impounded, removed, and relocated two blocks away.

Be that as it may, he's said it's for sale since 2004 on the condition that the artwork doesn't move. If Wikipedia knows this, a hedge fund knows this. Could they have bought the sculpture and avoided all controversy? Yep. Did they have to? Nope. So here we are.

I don't know why anyone would care to avoid this enormously important controversy of an snitty artist whining about the fact that he can't control how people perceive a piece of art that he decided to leave in a public place.

First and best, be magnanimous and not sweat the girl. Gives the best chance for people to appreciate his work in the way he intended it, yea the girl will be fucking with the bull but oh well. He comes off as gracious and open minded. He can see the privately but he doesn't come off as a dick and people can choose to enjoy his work for the reasons he made it or not.

Second is take his bull and go home. He no longer has to withstand the hideous indignity of his work being mocked by a girl or people interpreting his art in a way he didn't intend. He looks like a cranky old asshole but at the same time, the pain is over.

He's taking a third path. Threatening to sue, raging against a little girl and all that she stands for, enhancing the add campaign, making his bull look like an even greater aggressor than he did all ready, making capital look like a bully and he's going to lose this fight. The longer it goes on the worse he will look and the more sullied the image of the bull will become.

It's a fantastic bull statue, powerful and awesome. The girl statue is cleaver an charming. No matter what happens, the little girl is going to win the day. Tim for Di Modica to decide how he wants himself and his work to be remembered.

People aren't appreciating the work the way he intended it - he intended it to represent the indomitable spirit of American capitalism. It's now been subverted to represent male dominance. More than that, he put it up out of his own pocket, and the city of New York has been profiting from it as a tourist draw with no royalties to him. On the other hand, the subversion is being done by a corporation whose entire modus operandi was profit, yet they're making an end-run around the requirements for corporate sponsorship or support of the arts.

“We were focusing on making a statement about the future of Wall Street,” Visbal told CNN Money last month. “We wanted this wonderful contrast.”

And he still can take the bull home - but by making a statement as to why he's unhappy with the repurposing he gets the discussion above. And - really - if he did want some money out of it? This is the way to get it. When was the last time you thought about that bull before an investment firm threw a girl in front of it?

The guy spent $360,000 on public art in 1989. If he'd put that in a Vanguard fund tracking the Dow he'd have $3.2m by now. All the rest of it? That's you projecting.

You know the Fremont Troll? How do you think the fine folx of Fremont would feel if Nintendo (good, local company that provides a lot of jobs) decided to throw up a statue of Link to "empower dreamers" or some shit? On a date that happened to coincide with the release of Breath of the Wild?

I'ma reckon everyone, from the artists to the mayor to the people driving by, would lose their collective shit. The difference here is "girl power." That's it. And when you see it in quotes, hear it said by Gerri Hallowell. For a bank.

There are more than three paths, and all of them have hazards you are discounting.

He should take his bull back or deal with the fact that he doesn't like one spin on his work.

It's not his work anymore. Though I recognize the vast difference in scale, you can't ask the architect to take done Empire State Building simply because it's not used for zeppelins as originally intended.

I love the Fearless Girl and I resent her. She’s an example of how commercialization can take something important and meaningful — something about which everybody should agree — and shit all over it by turning it into a commodity. Fearless Girl is beautiful, but she is selling SHE; that’s why she’s there.

Seems akin to the Pepsi/Kardashian commercial. Co-opting a sentiment, a movement, for commercialization.

I am less moved by the argument that the Fearless Girl is an advertisement as I am by the argument that this artwork changes the meaning of another. The statue is great, the positioning is amazing, the two pieces work together so powerfully to deliver an important message. But that's also the problem. It's would be the same if another artist added to the bull statue so that someone was riding it. The two pieces together are now essentially one work of art.

I love the new artwork, but I would be pissed off too if I were Di Modica.

I have basically the opposite reaction. It really rubs me the wrong way when companies use any kind of political ideals, progressive or not, to promote themselves. On the other hand, I think the fact that a piece of art can be responded to and have its meaning changed is what makes it interesting. Of course, not being the artist himself, it's easy for me to say that.

Fascinating article and discussion below. Any time art excites controversy is a good time. People are asked to face up to their differing interpretations. Hell, people are asked to interpret. What does it mean?

I doubt very many viewers will know the corp that SHE refers to. I doubt very many viewers will know that the bull refers to the "strength and power of the American people" unless it says that right under the bull - and then, even so, who reads?

A more likely interpretation has to do with a "bull market" since it's the Wall Street bull: share prices are rising, buy early, buy often.

I liked Greg Fallis's blog, especially this:

and subversion is (also almost by definition) usually the province of marginalized populations attempting to undermine the social order maintained by tradition and the establishments of power.

I understand that the artist is outraged, but the fearless or defiant or confident girl facing down the bull is subversive in ways that go beyond what SHE intended. Thanks kb.

I had heard an argument about the power of 'market feminism' once many moons ago. A notable feminist professor on my campus was arguing something to the effect of 'It's great that corporations are latching onto feminist/LGBT ideas, because it puts purchasing/market power behind those ideas/ideals.'

I think it's disgusting as the Pepsi ad featuring that worthless celebrity. It divides corporate entities into 'good' and 'bad', giving the Feminist/Progressive Seal of Approval onto groups whose primary functions include corporate lobbying of the worst kind.

And I was so self-righteously RIGHT, too! My righteous indignation was RIGHT. And indignant!

Goddamn facts.

(I still think that once you place your art in a public space you invite comment, parody, discussion, analysis, interpretation, etc. Jimi Hendrix said he didn't really like doing albums because it codified one version of a song as the "official" version, when, in reality, he rarely played them the same way twice. So Arturo needs to be accepting of all commentary on his piece, regardless of whether that commentary is paid for, is statuary, or is in written form.)